I Pass

I have the vague feeling that I've written this already, but I can't find it among previous essays so I'll try again. I can think of three plausible explanations for this problem: the first is that I never wrote it. Perhaps I painstakingly worked out the details mentally but never wrote it down. Or, as an alternative scenario, it's possible that I actually wrote it down, but not in any of my essays. I could have written notes for a future blog or worked out the whole thing but recorded it somewhere else.

The third possibility is that I wrote it out in one of my previous essay, but simply can't remember where or when. I lost it. Because I'm losing it. (I know that is happening.) Unfortunately this seems to me to be the most likely explanation for what happened. Which leaves you to pay for it. (In fact if that's what happened, just you wait. I'll repeat my absentmindedness – euphemism for the real situation – and you'll pay for it again.) So if it looks familiar, please forgive me. (And if you know where it comes from, please let me know. I'll be your best friend forever. Or at least until Tuesday.) Chances are good, however, that no matter what the explanation, it won't affect very many people since very few read my words. I'm talking to myself.

In any event, with the presidential election coming soon, I wanted to comment on voting possibilities. As you probably know, I oppose both major party candidates. That leaves me with only limited choices and I'd like to outline and discuss them.

The first possibility (of three – parallels my mental state, doesn't it?) is to let the election pass without voting. If I can't vote for either of them in good conscience, why should I? How can I support someone whose views are anathema to me, whatever the reason for doing so. The major problem for me with that approach is that I subscribe to the obligation to vote. It's my civic duty. Corny as it sounds, I accept that. And since so few Americans vote, my absence from the polls won't be noticed, and it won't have any effect. It's a wasted non-vote. It's not the wasted vote that so many would consider it.

Another plausible response is to choose the lesser of the evils. There's no question in my mind that both of the candidates are poor choices, but perhaps one is worse than the other. However supporting the lesser of evils requires me to support evil. And, as I asked above, how can I support someone whose views are anathema to me – even if the views of the other are even more so? Voting for someone whose loss would please me really is a wasted vote. He or she might actually win.

It's not all that appealing, but there is another choice. It's a loser and I know it, but it gives me a chance to protest and be heard while remaining within the system. Voting for a third party makes a public statement that I consider the two main candidates to be unfit for the office. It's quite unlikely that anyone will believe such a vote to be a positive statement about the individual chosen because, frankly, so little is known about any but the candidates of the major parties. So if enough people opt for third party candidates the message of dissatisfaction will be heard, and may yet have some effect on the actions of whoever wins. Or it may have an effect on candidates and policies in the next election. It's even conceivable, even if unlikely, that some state may be won by such a candidate and both major party candidates deprived of a majority. I doubt that such a possibility will occur, but it would be very instructive for the candidates, the government, and the people, if the House of Representatives debated the issue and had the responsibility of choosing the next president.

And that's the option I shall choose. I'd prefer voting for a major party candidate whom I could, in good conscience, support, but since that alternative doesn't exist this time around, I can only place country above party and reject them both by selecting third-party candidates.

The ticket for me will be Johnson and Weld. How about you?

Mixed Grill

Over the past few years, during the time I've been preparing and publishing these essays, I've accumulated a lot of material not suited to be used alone, but still, at least as far as I'm concerned, intriguing. Some of it includes quotations which I like. I've attributed these, indicating who wrote them and, when I knew it, gave information about the source. Also included are many puns, aphorisms, and the like that crossed my mind during this period. I doubt that they are original. As Solomon said in Ecclesiastes, there is nothing new under the sun. (Note the attribution.) Nonetheless, they occurred to me without any reference to a particular source, and to that degree are original.

In any event, I have no idea how I might use them except as a salmagundi of unrelated definitions, maxims, and wordplay. Some of them are not very good (let's face it – some are terrible) but I feel better that they're now out of my system. I've listed them randomly so don't look for any order. There's plenty more, and I'll dump them on you from time to time.

Proceed at your own risk.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Swing for the fences – Benny Goodman concert recordings (which just fell off a truck). I'm looking for a someone who can unload them for me.

Some like it hot – McDonald's coffee. Special price for lawyers.

Don't overthink the effects of the Zika virus

The vice of capitalism is that it stands for the unequal sharing of blessings; whereas the virtue of socialism is that it stands for the equal sharing of misery. – Winston Churchill

Show me the way to go home – GPS app for pigeons.

Oats, Peas, Beans and Barley II – Passover restaurant for Ashkenazic apostates.

Flash mob – keep your kids away.

Papperazzus – lone photographer in the Roman Senate on the Ides of March.

I never met a man I didn't like – Will Rogers referring to Leon Trotsky.

I can resist anything except temptation – Oscar Wilde in Lady Windermere's Fan.

Perhaps young and determined, and perhaps the Governor broke her heart there, but Hillary Clinton is certainly not a little girl from Little Rock, despite the fact that anything goes. (Credit Cole Porter)

Sumertime – the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze ages

Some ware over the rainbow – gay dating app

I'm not an alcoholic,

I'm a drunk

Alcoholics go to meetings.

Seen in a window in Greenwich Village.

Cat in the Hat With a Tin Roof Sundae – Book for all age groups by Theodor William Tennneseuss. Illustrated.

Genderism – Sexism for those illiterati who consider “sex” a four letter word and who are unaware of the word “gender” in its correct use.

If kids can drive their parents crazy, parents can embarrass their kids.

You prayed for her, you can pray for me – Saint Rick (Credit Howard Koch)

Man of the whole cloth – Non-believing vicar armed with loose canons.

Give 'em hell, Harley – New motto for saintly bikers.

Loot of the frum – Hassidic profits of questionable origin.

House for sale by identity thief. – Cheap

Sexual mores – According to our “modern” culture, it means more sex.

Think small – Mite makes right as David defeats Goliath.

E. D. – Cause of recent crane collapse on Tappen Zee Bridge

Donald Trump And Hillary Clinton – Punch and Pinocchio

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Th-Th-Th-That's All Folks. (Porky Pig)  At least for now. I regret to inform you that there's plenty more where that came from, and you're my best target.

You have been warned!

Who's Whose?

We've cracked the genetic code. We can characterize and identify individuals by their DNA. It constitutes more evidence, beyond that already abounding throughout our society, that almost anything is possible in the field of technology.

I raise this issue because a few weeks ago I discussed “Jewish Geography” (October 2, 2016) and recalled the concept of “six degrees of separation.” I wrote about our connections to everyone else, focusing on the idea that we're not as separated as we think from others, even if they speak a different language or live in some distant land. However we don't know of the connections.

Why not? We're at a point in time when it doesn't seem far-fetched to imagine a closer linkage of people and a means for determining those links. All it takes is the right “App.” And, of course, a lot of raw data.

With that possibility in mind I am working on (and I'm almost ready for alpha testing) a new program to solve the problem. Although it is primarily designed for use on “smart phones” (almost everyone [except me] has one) it can also be used on obsolete devices, like computers. It deals with a complex, but not insoluble problem. The goal is to list everyone on earth, and to show the relationships (blood and friendship) that exist among them. At least among those who matter. We may not be able to eliminate the six degrees, but we can try. Indeed, by being able to identify connections wherever you go you will be able to eliminate the distance and to short-circuit the separations from those we'd like to know better.

There's a lot to accomplishing this, but the tools are more and more available. The primary ones are national population data (if you're not registered, you don't exist) and the social media (if you're not listed, no one cares about you anyway). Understanding the system calls for more detail, and I'll try to provide it.

Every nation worth the name has population data. Minimally it includes births, deaths, and marriages, but there is also information based on passports, social programs (like the American Social Security System in which babies are registered at birth), medical systems, telephone companies, news media, credit cards, and numerous other references. (Other sources of data, where available, like census records, citizen identification, prison ledgers, drivers' licenses, and other governmental records will be used as well, as well as those from private industry and private groups.) There are likely to be many who are not registered in one or more of these data bases, but, from a practical point of view, those people are not likely to be seeking connections with others, unless they choose to do so through another mechanism. Also important are the facts that most of this information is digitized and updated regularly, as it would be in the App. (“Updated” is probably not the right word since the process would be continuous. It happens more than once per date. Births and deaths, for example, happen all the time. At the time of this writing [July 19, 2016] the US population is 324,034,087. No, wait. It just went up. Once every eleven seconds. “Upseconded,” “upminuted” and “uphoured,” however, are a little clunky, so we'll probably stick with existing terminology.)

More important from the perspective of establishing connections are the social media. Have you “friended” or others, or been friended by them? Are you “LinkedIn” with others. What bonds have you through the numerous social media? Has anyone mentioned you on any of these sites? Chances are good that even if you haven't initiated a link, you're there. And that's the key. Not only is there likely to be basic demographic information about (almost) everyone (and government data will probably include addresses, age, and other identifying content) but the various on-line social programs will spot friends, friends of friends, colleagues and coworkers of friends, and the vast web of interconnections that exist. If additional information, like previous homes, professions, military service, or other such is available it can be mined for other relationships; and the six degrees may, in some cases, be converted to five. And people would be able to enter information about those omitted – both of the current and previous generations.

The program would be able to illustrate the ties that bind us – even those at a distance. We'd be able to find the connections, no matter how many degrees may exist. Birthdays, anniversaries, and other significant dates would be ours for the taking. In addition, moreover, we'd be able to construct family trees with the data, perhaps discovering relatives of whom we never knew. Imagine having a data base that includes everyone in the world. And if everyone's DNA map were determined and included, we might even discover unknown relationships (even those we deny).

Of course there are kinks in the links, kinks that are still to be conquered. Among them are duplicate names which will be a large category, but we have a start at sorting using a variety of addresses, home, e-mail, work, etc. and travel records will give us a start on this and on the elimination of duplicate entries for the same person. It will be necessary to get the cooperation of all nations, and the UN can be a big help here. There will be countries that don't want to help, and insurgent groups that will bristle at requests for membership lists, but the UN is dedicated to bring us all together (on their own terms) and will surely aid in the effort. Similarly there will be individuals who fear the existence of a unified listing of everyone and those people may seek anonymity, but they cannot be permitted to separate themselves from the world. The Bill of Rights be damned. (Winston Smith feared its happening, but he told me it would take place eventually.)

Imagine being able to find out who lives next door. How nice to know about the person who looks just like ________. My app will be done any day now. You don't think so? In the words of William Arthur Ward (twentieth century writer), “if you can imagine it, you can achieve it.” I can imagine it.

Trust

We're in the process of refinancing our home. Mortgage rates have gone down and we might as well take advantage of that fact. We've done this before and we've learned that one of the requirements for a mortgage is insurance on the dwelling in question. Makes sense. If I'm asking you to risk your money it's not unreasonable to recognize that you'll want to be sure that the collateral is secure. And it's reasonable that I should pay for the insurance since I'll have possession of the house, and I'll have to maintain its value so that it will be in good condition should it ever be necessary to turn it over to you.

Similarly, we just leased an automobile. It is, for all practical purposes, our car. If anything happens to it it's our responsibility – at least for the next three years. We have to return it to the dealer in the same condition as we got it.

It seems logical that whoever has possession of a valuable item will care for it and take responsibility for it. That might mean insuring it, but if it is to be returned to someone (or even if that is only a possibility), the one who is in possession of an item should guarantee its safety. Even more so if that person is being paid to perform a service on it.

It comes as an unwelcome demand, then, that the Post Office and UPS (as well, presumably, as other firms) require a payment for insurance for something under their control. And that's just what they do.

It seems strange to be asked if I want to insure something that they're holding and delivering for me. It's almost as if they were saying “we're not reliable, but that's your problem. Just pay us, and if you're worried about whatever you've entrusted to us, just pay us a little extra and we'll insure it for you.” If they have some concern about what they do, it seems to me that they should pay for the insurance themselves or self-insure and accept the responsibility for their own acts. I know this will increase their costs, and they will raise the rates I have to pay, but I can't imagine the local dry cleaner asking me to insure what he's cleaning. If I'm paying for a service I don't expect to have to leave a tip in order to be sure I'll get it. And I certainly don't expect to be asked for one – however they phrase it.

Perhaps expecting others to take responsibility for what they do is old-fashioned. But I'm old-fashioned.

Close, But No Cigar

Ya' gotta' believe.

That, however, isn't enough. You also have to score runs. And last night the Mets didn't do that.

I have no wish to minimize the performance of Madison Bumgarner. He was magnificent. Nor to criticize the Mets's starting pitcher, Noah Syndergaard. He, too, pitched very well. In addition, it would be easy, but unfair, to denigrate the work of Jeurys Familias who gave up the ninth inning runs that yielded the game to the Giants. He saved many games for the Mets this season and if he's not perfect, sobeit.

In the end, with Gillaspie's three-run homer, the Giants won. The Mets didn't know how to hit Bumgarner, but the Giants had figured out how to deal with Familia. They deserved to win.

Knowledge is power. The Mets need more knowledge.

Status Change

I'm compulsive. But you know that. After all, I publish this series regularly and never miss a week. Every Sunday there is a new edition (unless I have to reschedule because of a holiday). I probably shouldn't say “new” since much of the material is recycled and reworked. I said it before and you've read it before. But it keeps me busy, and you can ignore it if you choose.

I've been working on a change, however. For a while. Today is September 6^th. I know that even though I'm writing it now it won't be published for a while and, you may not see it until after that. It doesn't change anything of course, but I thought I'd let you know what's happening.

Continuity is important to me. That includes my heritage, and the security of Israel. In a world that is more interested in pandering to countries with large populations and resources, and to a fashionable liberalism as camouflage for antisemitism (Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests – Lord Palmerston) there seems to be no great concern for right and wrong, only in what's good for them, what fits their biases, and what they think will benefit them.

Some of the same considerations apply in our own country. Our founders weren't perfect, but their originating documents provided a solid and well-thought-out basis for growth and for greatness. Some updating has been necessary through the years, but those changes that respected the aims of our founders have turned out to be beneficial. The times have changed and so have we. Thus some of the subsequent Constitutional amendments have helped us keep our principles up to date. Unfortunately, power grabs by the executive branch, and the personal opinions of unelected members of the judiciary – what they think should be, rather than what is justified by the law and the intent of those who wrote it – have altered our society and its ground rules well beyond what might have been anticipated. But that's not really what I want to write about.

Let me get to the point. I won't live forever, but I don't want this blog to die with me – at least not immediately. For the past several months I've been preparing extra essays and stockpiling them. More accurately, I've been scheduling them for publication long in the future. As of now (September) I'm into March of next year (actually I have one set for August, 2017) and my goal is to get to a point at which I'm a year ahead. That way the blog will continue for a year after my passing, or for a year after I stop writing these essays. It's my hope that they'll last at least for the eleven months when my children are saying Kaddish for me. [Kids, if you're reading this, feel free to reprint whatever seems worthy – if anything.] That's as much immortality as I can hope to get.

While I'm doing that, of course, I'll still keep my eyes and ears open for what I consider “wrong.” I've probably related this anecdote before, but if so it's worth repeating here (perhaps not exactly as I heard it, but as well as I can remember): When a writer was asked to write an Op-Ed for a newspaper he hesitated. “What will I write about?” he asked. Another writer responded. “Are there two things that you see in the news each week that make you angry?” To which the first writer said “Of course.” The next comment was predictable. “Write about them.”

There's a lot in this less-than-perfect world that makes me angry – even if I take great pains not to display my anger. I'll continue to write about those things and slip them in, between the scheduled posts. I won't solve the world's problems, but I'll feel better. And you should feel free to comment on what I write. Unless you disagree with me. In that case you're wrong, and I don't argue with people who disagree with me. (I think I've said that before, too.)

To let you know my plans I had to slip this essay in, moving one on Jewish Geography to February. You'll have to wait, if your interested. And if you're not interested it doesn't matter. But as of now you're up to date.